David Nickerson wrote: > The more this is explained, the more it sounds like this could all be > achieved with some additions to the errata for the CellML 1.1 > specification. What benefit is gained by making a 1.1.1 version?
>From what I gather, publicity. We need some way to direct people's attention to our intention to deprecate reaction elements. > >> 1.1.1 doesn't describe the reaction element, but 1.1 does, and 1.1.1 and >> 1.1 are in the same namespace. If software which has supported reactions >> per the CellML 1.1 specification sees the reaction element, it will >> follow the 1.1 specification (indeed, we probably would benefit from an >> implementation guide which encourages tool developers to support more >> than one version of CellML if possible. How many versions back they want >> to support is up to them). >> >> Model authors on the other hand will be strongly encouraged to use >> CellML 1.1.1. >> >> Best regards, >> Andrew >> >> _______________________________________________ >> cellml-discussion mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://www.cellml.org/mailman/listinfo/cellml-discussion > _______________________________________________ cellml-discussion mailing list [email protected] http://www.cellml.org/mailman/listinfo/cellml-discussion
